Saturday, October 15, 2011

Protestant Michael Gove confronts the Roman Catholic hierarchy

There is a great deal still to be unearthed and disseminated from Michael Gove's writings from the time he was a columnist for The Times: he wrote much on the Protestant ethos of the United Kingdom, and how this has shaped his worldview (and so, now, his politics). It is perhaps eloquently illustrated by Charles moore, writing in The Telegraph, who provides us with a fascinating account of the Secretary of State's Protestant instinct which has swept aside the inefficient bureaucratic hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster in order to liberate one of the best schools in the country from those who sought to undermine its ethos. Thus do we read:

...the Cardinal Vaughan School in west London is in big trouble. Its places are seven times oversubscribed. It got 11 pupils into Oxford and Cambridge this year. According to The Daily Telegraph’s table, it is the most successful comprehensive school in the country. Its parents and staff are fiercely loyal to it.

Sure enough, “The Vaughan”, as it is commonly known, has come under constant attack from the education bureaucrats in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster... Last year, the diocese set to work to appoint “foundation governors” who would outvote the elected parent governors and staff representatives who always support the school’s disciplined, traditionally religious and academically rigorous ethos. It tried to get round the rule that foundation parent governors should be, as the rule obviously intends but does not precisely state, parents of children in the school. The ensuing court case has prompted the Government to strengthen the law to prevent such a thing happening again... With the retirement last year of The Vaughan’s popular headmaster, the diocese saw the chance to find a successor who would change the attitudes of the staff and so neutralise the staff governors.

The parents were having none of this, and the protest reached the ears of the Secretary of State himself:

...It seems that Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, was so struck by the strength of the parental protest that he looked into the matter. He did not like what he found. Under the 1996 Education Act, he has the power to order an investigation of whether a governing body has behaved unreasonably. On Monday or Tuesday, he telephoned the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, and told him that he was minded to do so in this case.

It seems that the archbishop was displeased with Mr Gove, but also alarmed at the prospect of an investigation: processes would be inspected and minutes unearthed. In the past, the foundation governors have always appeared to do whatever the diocese wanted. Now the diocese did not want an investigation. No one is saying exactly what happened next, but on Wednesday, Mr Stubbings was appointed. With a bit of luck, he will achieve his ambition of turning The Vaughan into an academy.

Is it not glorious that religious liberty in education is upheld for Roman Catholic parents (and, indeed, those of all faiths and none) with an appeal to the Protestant instinct to heed the wisdom of the laity? To trust their judgement? To respect their spiritual convictions? As Charles Moore observes: "Only with the help of the minister can bureaucracy be defeated." Yet that is true only for as long as the minister is attuned to the principles of democracy, subsidiarity and accountability. What might have been the outcome of this case had the Secretary of State for Education been a Roman Catholic loyal to his or her church's education bureaucrats and a very good friend of the Archbishop of Westminster?

49 Comments:

Lets just consider some of the background to this affair before leaping to judgement.

Some parents have accused the diocese of Westminster of wanting to "change the way the school operates, dilute its Catholic ethos and turn it into a local comprehensive".

What cunnngmeans were they using?

In 2009, Catholic education officials referred the school to the admissions watchdog claiming that its points-based policy effectively penalised less devout Catholics.

Boys had to prove that they and one of their parents had attended weekly Sunday mass for at least three years, that they had been baptised within a year of their birth, had made their first confession and first holy communion before their ninth birthday, and that they had either attended a Catholic school for the whole of their statutory education or that their parents had made formal provision for their Catholic education outside school.

Reasonable criteria? The schools adjudicator didn't think so and ruled in favour of the diocese, forcing the school to change its entry criteria for 11-year-olds after being told parts of it were "unlawful" and "unfair".

All well and good. The diocese wanted access to be less restictive. The response from the former chair of governors Sir Adrian Fitzgerald described the church's victory as a "betrayal" of committed Catholics.

So, it's a bit of a muddle this one. A protestant Minister supporting a group of Catholic parents and a school's teachers who want to restrict admissions to those who can demonstrate unquestioning, life long loyalty to the Catholic faith against a Catholic hierarchy who would like access to Catholics who may not be so demonstrably staunch or who may have converted to the faith later in life.

Strange this is being presented as devout Catholic parents being pitted against left-leaning Westminster diocesan bureaucrats The school's policy of giving preference to pupils whose families are demonstrably Catholic was simply seen as too stringent and excessive.

The diocese acted responsibly and within the law. The diocese is the trustee and provider of the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School and it is for the Archbishop to appoint Foundation Governors as a majority. Foundation Governors have the specific responsibility of preserving and developing the Catholic character of the school, as judged by the Diocesan Bishop.

It is not the intention of the diocese to remove the Catholic ethos of the school, to permit the entrance of non-Catholics or to create a run-of-the-mill comprehensive. Why would it want to?

The Inspector believes his initial point is all important. Archbishop Cranmer has a successful blog site, and all down to his direction and management. Imagine if a committee of ‘stake holders’ (...his communicant’s...) got together, let’s say under the chairmanship of G. Tingey (...though unlikely, unpopular fellow that he is...) and demanded they run the show ??. What do you say to that Your Grace ???

It seems to me that a sub-group of Roman Catholics have set aside a sweet little school just for people like themselves, and they want to keep it that way. The stringent entrance requirements are designed to screen the insufficiently committed, the insufficiently Catholic in an effort to protect the ethos of the school. The school wants to guarantee itself and certain kind of student from a certain kind of family.

Yes, this means that some applicants will be rejected who would otherwise qualify as committed RCs. It certainly means that many parents who want access to quality education for their children will feel slighted. That is a price those already within the school are willing to impose on applicants because (1) the school values its ethos more than the occasional injustice it might inflict and (2) these injustices obviously don't affect those who have already made it through the screening process. To the contrary, those occasional injustices pander to the ego of those inside, for they have been found worthy of admission. None of this is particularly noble, but all of it is understandable.

But here is the question. Why is any of this the business of the Government? So a bunch of RCs form a school with strict Catholic entrance requirements. There exists no right to attend a private school. No one has been wronged in a legal sense. People have been offended certainly - as in "Why is my child not worthy?" But offense does not a prima facia case for Government intervention make. This is a power struggle between the diocese and an organization within the dioceses. Let the contending parties work it out amongst themselves. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I agree with much of wht you say. Indeed, the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of the diocese, affirming the entrance requirements as being "unlawful" and upheld the right of the trustees to appoint school governors.

This isn't about freedom, as you point out, it's more about a group of traditionalists attempting to preserve their position of priviledge.

Heaven forbid any Catholic child should cross the threshold of this hallowed school who's parents may be judged as luke warm in the faith. Or that a child of 11 years cannot evidence his credentials as a practicing Catholic since the first year of his life.

"The Inspector believes his initial point is all important. Archbishop Cranmer has a successful blog site, and all down to his direction and management. Imagine if a committee of ‘stake holders’ (...his communicant’s...) got together, let’s say under the chairmanship of G. Tingey (...though unlikely, unpopular fellow that he is...) and demanded they run the show ??. What do you say to that Your Grace ???"

Don't even go there! You might give len or Ernsty ideas. After all thay are staunch protesters.

Your Grace is right to point out the crisis in Catholic education and as a Catholic I welcome the support given by Protestant Michael Gove to the parents. It is unfortunate that since the second Vatican Council some fellow travellers seem to ensconced themselves into the higher echelons of the Church and have been intent on ensuring that orthodox catholic priests are denied the higher positions in the Church and their voices silenced all because they are orthodox. It is worth pointing that a number of lay organizations have been instituted by faithful Catholics and perhaps you know about Pro-Ecclesia et Pontifice led by that wonderful lady Daphne McLeod. I just wanted to say that faithful orthodox Catholics are doing their bit to oppose the liberalism of some church leaders but nevertheless the support of Michael Gove and other Christian allies is welcome and appreciated. I’m not sure of all the politics involved and the points made by Dodo and the General that the criteria were too restrictive may have merit but there is no doubt that the Catholic hierarchy have in some cases been too willing to cow tow to government dictat. It is unbelievable how they have simply allowed Catholic adoption agencies to be closed by Labour without a fight. No I think I’d side with the parents first until I have all the details. We are in unfortunate times when faithful Catholic find they have to fight their own hierarchy to defend orthodoxy. There are too many priests who are definitely not orthodox.

To provide some evidence regarding the way in which the hierarchy do not support Catholics but prefer to undermine orthodox organizations I have added a link describing the events which led to the cancellation of the Pro-Ecclesia et Pontifice conference last June. It seemed to have been deliberately undermined by Catholic prelates. May God have mercy on their souls.

He’s extremely keen not to miss any posts by your learned communicants. He can see the date of your blog release plus the number of comments. Would it be possible to ALSO include the timestamp of the last comment. God knows what an improvement that would be, but as it pleases His Grace of course...

If my earlier comments appear to show disobedience to the hierarchy of the Church let us remember that within the Westminster diocese and fully with the knowledge and support of Archbishop Nicholls there continues to be masses held for Lesbian, bi-sexual, gay and transgender people. How can this be Catholic? It’s like having masses for Scots people in England – completely divisive and unorthodox. These masses indicate that we have traitors in our midst who are undermining true Catholic orthodoxy in order to fit in with the spirit of the times. Archbishop Nicholls has been challenged on this and has done nothing about it. He is a traitor to the teaching of Christ. We live in times which have a certain similarity with the period of the Arian crisis. After the Nicene Creed defined the true nature of Christ as being equal and consubstantial with the father we then had a period of about 60 years when Arian bishops held the high offices of the Church and persecuted orthodox believers like St. Athanasius. Unfortunately Catholics today have the same problem.

You describe Gove as being a "protestant". He was brought up by a Labour supporting family (adopted by them) and raised as a presbyterian (Church of Scotland). He appears to have drifted away from this and is now firmly Anglican and worships at St.Mary Abbots, Kensington. This was also a favourite church of the late Andrew Cruickshank, actor and Scottish Episcopalian.

I've read His Grace's post through several times, and cannot see other that, whether he realises it or not, he is making a case for the abolition of publicly funding of 'faith schools', and for a secular publicly funded education system.

For myself, I find it rather obscene that people are led to lie about their religious convictions, to attend and help to fund churches they do not believe in, in order to satisfy the natural urge to want the natural urges to want the best education available locally, and/or the most conveniently local school.

Let there be no more public financing of 'faith schools' - which is, by the way, an expression that fills me with deep loathing, as much on aesthetic grounds as on the grounds of being someone with little respect for faith.

The dispute in Westminster runs deep and, from what I can glean, seems to centre on church services in Soho for openly practicing homosexuals, who allegedly receive the eucharist, and the orthodoxy of christian education in schools. It's been growing more public, accrimonious and divisive in recent years and came to something of a head last year.

Masses specifically for homosexuals and other sexual deviant’s offends the Inspector as no doubt the majority of Catholics. The Inspector has no objection to them attending ‘ordinary’ masses. One wonders if the Vatican is aware of what’s going on in Westminster....

Masses for homosexuals attempting to live decent Christian lives is acceptable. Unfortunately, matters appear to have gotten out of hand and it seems they have become a focal point for attempting to pressure the Church into changing its teachings - 'Proud to be Catholic and Gay', a common tactic. There's also a suggestion the Masses were initiated by a priest in an openly active homosexual relationship.

However, I did insert the word "allegedly" about receiving the eucharist. An indignant delegation has been to Rome to offer evidence about the reported dodgy goings on.

The Catholic Church is not immune from the forces of evil. However, as promised by Christ, it will prevail against the Gates of Hell.

I think it is true to say that I have a wholly different perspective on this matter.

It is claimed that strong elements within The Vatican are on a long term mission to destroy The RCC as we have come to know it, as well as Christianity in general, and all other established religions as a whole.

This as part of a plan to create a ONE WORLD RELIGION, to compliment a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, with The Vatican as its primary base of spiritual operations.

I do not believe that this plan has any particular dead-line to keep, and so can take as long as it ends up taking, however slowly but surely, or in larger progressive steps, The Great Babylonian Plan moves in one direction, and one direction only.

Of course the CofE is well in advance of The RCC, in these matters, however one by one all will undoubtedly be undermined until the whole structure of various established religions, materially as well as spiritually have absolutely nothing holding them up at all.

I predict this, although I make no prediction as to when it will happen, other then it could be at anytime in the future, even tomorrow, if the time is deemed correct.

After much systematic undermining of all nation states, most especially their financial independence, and their political, financial, and spiritual institutions, an apparently WORLD changing EVENT will be STAGED.

This may involve many wild and wonderful things, but will most likely include an apparent second coming of some kind, which will be a game changer, to say the very least.

Atlas, Malachi 1:11 – "For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering". The Old Testament therefore does mention that the Old Jewish sacrifice would be superseded by a new one and as Protestantism definitely refutes that they offer sacrifice that only leaves the Orthodox and Catholic churches. With regard to one world government it would be expected for satan to attempt to set up a one world government ensure that believers would not be able to buy and sell (Revelation). However, I think that the United Nations and Freemasonry are more likely candidates to bring that about than the Catholic Chgurch

The hierarchy in Westminster is wholly unrepresentative of both the laity AND the wider church.Unfortunately the Catholic Church, like the CofE ,has been infiltrated by elements that seek to undermine real church teaching, tradition and culture.

And your evidence against Archbishop Vincent Nichols and Bishop John Sherrington consists of .... ?

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)